In a major immigration decision issued on August 13, 2026, the US Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned its 2012 precedent in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly. According to reports from Business Standard, in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, the Board held that leaving the US under Advance Parole constitutes a 'departure' for purposes of the unlawful-presence provisions of US immigration law. This decision represents a fundamental shift from the previous interpretation that had been in place for more than a decade. As per Latin Times, the ruling centers on a Salvadoran woman who was granted DACA in 2013 after being removed in 2006, later married a US citizen and returned on advance parole in January 2024. The Board used her case to revisit and reverse the 2012 rule that had shielded travelers like her. The BIA published its decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026) and expressly overruled the precedent established in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly in 2012, holding that a departure from the United States made pursuant to a grant of Advance Parole is a 'departure' for purposes of INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
The ruling has significant implications for immigrants who have accumulated unlawful presence in the US. As reported by Business Standard, more than 180 days but less than one year of qualifying unlawful presence can result in a three-year bar after departure, while one year or more can result in a 10-year bar after departure. According to Latin Times, the consequences come down to time spent in the country without legal status before someone landed protected status. Those numbers aren't new — what's new is that an advance parole trip can now flip the switch on them. The decision is prospective only, meaning the BIA specifically declined to apply its new interpretation retroactively to existing cases, though it did run a retroactivity analysis and concluded it would be unfair to apply the new rule backward after people had spent well over a decade building their immigration plans around the old rule. The BIA itself stated that a person may become inadmissible under this section of the INA because of international travel undertaken with Advance Parole, and the new interpretation applies prospectively to future cases while not affecting previous travel decisions.
According to Business Standard, Advance Parole is a travel document that allows certain non-US citizens with pending immigration applications or qualifying immigration status to leave the US and seek permission to return without obtaining a visa specifically for that return trip. The document is commonly relevant to people with a pending Form I-485 adjustment-of-status application, as well as certain DACA and other humanitarian categories. Under the previous interpretation, travelling abroad on Advance Parole generally did not count as the 'departure' that triggered the three- or 10-year unlawful-presence bars. As per Latin Times, nothing about a valid advance parole document itself has changed — it still exists, and USCIS is still issuing them. What changed is the math behind using one. However, it's important to understand that Advance Parole is not a visa and does not guarantee entry into the United States. The instructions for Form I-131 specifically warn that upon return, a person is considered an applicant for admission, is subject to immigration inspection, and may be found inadmissible. The final decision regarding parole at the port of entry belongs to the Department of Homeland Security and CBP, and approval of a travel authorization has never meant that every other aspect of a person's immigration history is automatically resolved.
The ruling significantly impacts the traditional adjustment of status pathway through advance parole. As reported by Latin Times, rather than departing, triggering the ten-year bar, returning (hopefully), and then filing an I-601 waiver together with the adjustment application, noncitizens may now opt for consular processing. In those situations, they would file Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. After that is approved, they would depart for their immigrant visa interview. While the departure would trigger the ten-year unlawful presence bar, it would be waived at the immigrant visa application stage. However, under the current administration, consular processing is increasingly difficult for those subject to either the travel ban for nationals from 39 countries or the immigrant visa suspension currently impacting 75 countries. DACA recipients will be among the most affected, since those who had accrued unlawful presence before obtaining DACA had been able to use advance parole to travel abroad without triggering § 212(a)(9)(B). The analysis becomes especially important for people who: - entered the United States without inspection; - remained beyond the period authorized by a visa; - accumulated long periods without lawful status; - are pursuing Adjustment of Status; - have previously appeared before Immigration Court; - plan to use travel with Advance Parole as part of a strategy for a later Adjustment of Status application.
According to Business Standard, the ruling does not mean that every person with Advance Parole who travels outside the US will automatically receive a 10-year ban. The unlawful-presence bars depend on the individual's immigration history and the amount of qualifying unlawful presence accumulated before departure. As per Latin Times, anyone with a history of unlawful presence before receiving DACA, TPS or a pending green card case should have an immigration attorney run their unlawful-presence total and check whether a waiver is now required before booking anything. Immigration lawyers emphasize that 'being out of status' and 'accruing unlawful presence' are not necessarily identical concepts, and the calculation can depend on the person's immigration history, age, status, pending applications and other circumstances. This means that applicants must carefully evaluate their specific situation before making travel decisions. The BIA itself recognized that it was overruling a longstanding precedent and conducted a specific retroactivity analysis, after considering factors such as the reliance immigrants may have placed on the prior rule and the significant impact of the change. The analysis remains individualized, and two immigrants holding exactly the same Advance Parole document may face completely different legal consequences when traveling internationally.
